Mao: Totalitarian?

[Saint Street Revolution]

Righto then, I came across this quote by our beloved friend Mao Zedong:


Originally posted by Mao (this is alledgedly only a bit of the quote)
"How shall we deal with individuals with non-Marxist ideas? I find it quite simple. We simply deprive them of their freedom of speech."

Fuck that.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

hmmm source??

[Saint Street Revolution]

Now that I think about it I can't remember. Shitcakes... I was just browsing stuff on Mao, and I came upon it. Sorry bro. :(

[Vendetta]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-5/mswv5_58.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm)

Just search for 'deprive,' it's the second occurance.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:05 am
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-5/mswv5_58.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_58.htm)

Just search for 'deprive,' it's the second occurance.
I'm not seeing a search form in your link.

[Vendetta]

I meant use ctrl+F. :blush:

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by Mao
What should our policy be towards non-Marxist ideas? As far as unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause are concerned, the matter is easy, we simply deprive them of their freedom of speech. But incorrect ideas among the people are quite a different matter. Will it do to ban such ideas and deny them any opportunity for expression? Certainly not. It is not only futile but very harmful to use crude methods in dealing with ideological questions among the people, with questions about man's mental world. You may ban the expression of wrong ideas, but the ideas will still be there. On the other hand, if correct ideas are pampered in hothouses and never exposed to the elements and immunized against disease, they will not win out against erroneous ones. Therefore, it is only by employing the method of discussion, criticism and reasoning that we can really foster correct ideas and overcome wrong ones, and that we can really settle issues.

there we go.

[RedStarOverChina]

It's one of the few things that I agree with him on---Except hat he's not really a Marxist either, so....

[Rawthentic]

Mao understood that reactionary non-Marxist ideas were prevalent in China and would be in any socialist society. But he was not the one that wanted to shut everyone up if they disagreed, he wanted for those to be expressed in society so that they could be combated and challenged to arrive at correct ideas.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Mao (this is alledgedly only a bit of the quote)
"How shall we deal with individuals with non-Marxist ideas? I find it quite simple. We simply deprive them of their freedom of speech."
In principle, a very good idea.

The problem is, how can you know what kinds of ideas a person has? How do you know who has non-Marxist ideas? As Deng so clearly proved, it is quite possible for a reactionary to pass himself off as a Marxist until the time is right.

Furthermore, once you've charged some people with the task of ensuring that reactionary ideas do not get publicized, how do you ensure that they do not abuse their power?

In principle, it is a good idea to deprive reactionaries of the ability to spread their views. But in practice, it is impossible to do so effectively.

[Saint Street Revolution]

I don't think anybody's freedom of speech should be directly censored, as in a true Marxist or Anarchist society even the Cappies can talk shit, though they can't do anything about it. If Mao means he wants to seperate the Marxists from the enemy and then combat the enemy, that's perfectly fine.

[RNK]

I agree with Mao. Regardless of our beliefs about "free speech" its a simple fact that if given free room to maneuver and operate, bourgeois-minded individuals and groups will stop at nothing to pervert and manipulate the masses into believing and following them. That, I think, is the essence of what Mao was talking about (and something he spoke of frequently) -- depriving bourgeois ideas (capitalism, private property ownership, etc) from "mainstream" coverage, perpetuating a "culture" of criticism, debate, ideological confrontation against them, while imposing quite rational and natural restrictions against them.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:54 am
I agree with Mao. Regardless of our beliefs about "free speech" its a simple fact that if given free room to maneuver and operate, bourgeois-minded individuals and groups will stop at nothing to pervert and manipulate the masses into believing and following them. That, I think, is the essence of what Mao was talking about (and something he spoke of frequently) -- depriving bourgeois ideas (capitalism, private property ownership, etc) from "mainstream" coverage, perpetuating a "culture" of criticism, debate, ideological confrontation against them, while imposing quite rational and natural restrictions against them.
Yes, you have it quite right.

To Saint Street Revolution: I understand your of course pro-free speech argument but Mao is certainly not a Totalitarian. I actually think he is an extremely admirable theorist who knew how to combat the enemy in the best way, which was to stop them from revolting, obviously.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 02:46 am
It's one of the few things that I agree with him on---Except hat he's not really a Marxist either, so....
Could you, perhaps, outline a critique of Mao Zedong Thought for me, since it seems to not be truely Marxist to you? I'm not callin' you out :lol: just wanting to hear your opinion.

[Goatse]

So, let me get this straight, political oppression is wrong, unless those doing it are waving a red flag?

[Labor Shall Rule]

I think it depends on the situation.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:54 pm
So, let me get this straight, political oppression is wrong, unless those doing it are waving a red flag?
It is simply Mao's strategy on keeping Socialism enstated. In any Revolutionary society, the Capitalists must be prevented from regaining power. It will most likely be done with violence, as the Revolution was violent (in my views, anyway), so to avoid violence we get the Capitalists to submit and perhaps cooperate.

[Goatse]

That doesn't really answer my question. Why is political oppression wrong when right wingers do it?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:54 pm
So, let me get this straight, political oppression is wrong, unless those doing it are waving a red flag?
That's the essence of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The capitalists repress us when they control the state. Why shouldn't we repress them when we control it?


on edit

That doesn't really answer my question. Why is political oppression wrong when right wingers do it?

It's not about "right" and "wrong" at all. That would be subjective. It's about creating a socialist society and defeating one's enemies. They're trying to defeat us, we must defeat them.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:12 pm
That doesn't really answer my question. Why is political oppression wrong when right wingers do it?
Mao didn't oppress, which is what you seem to confuse. Right Wingers oppressed. Mao's strategy simply revolutionized and kept the Bourgeoise from reseizing their power.

Perhaps you think Revolution should be non-Authoritarian, which, as it happens, is impossible. Socialist revolution is the proletariat seizing power and taking control from the Bourgeoise, which sounds Authoritarian to me. Once this control is taken, it must be kept in order to lead an efficent, Socialist, just society.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Social Scum+September 12, 2007 08:21 pm--> (Social Scum @ September 12, 2007 08:21 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 08:12 pm
That doesn't really answer my question. Why is political oppression wrong when right wingers do it?
Mao didn't oppress, which is what you seem to confuse. Right Wingers oppressed. Mao's strategy simply revolutionized and kept the Bourgeoise from reseizing their power.

Perhaps you think Revolution should be non-Authoritarian, which, as it happens, is impossible. Socialist revolution is the proletariat seizing power and taking control from the Bourgeoise, which sounds Authoritarian to me. Once this control is taken, it must be kept in order to lead an efficent, Socialist, just society. [/b]
Because authoritarian revolution has worked so well in the past. Yeah, sorry, my bad.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by Goatse+September 12, 2007 08:40 pm--> (Goatse @ September 12, 2007 08:40 pm)
Originally posted by Social [email protected] 12, 2007 08:21 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 08:12 pm
That doesn't really answer my question. Why is political oppression wrong when right wingers do it?
Mao didn't oppress, which is what you seem to confuse. Right Wingers oppressed. Mao's strategy simply revolutionized and kept the Bourgeoise from reseizing their power.

Perhaps you think Revolution should be non-Authoritarian, which, as it happens, is impossible. Socialist revolution is the proletariat seizing power and taking control from the Bourgeoise, which sounds Authoritarian to me. Once this control is taken, it must be kept in order to lead an efficent, Socialist, just society.
Because authoritarian revolution has worked so well in the past. Yeah, sorry, my bad. [/b]
There's no such thing as a non-Authoritarian revolution, there is no choice. The only revolutions to ever suceed, within ever ideology in the world and on the political spectrum are authoritarian.

Mao's overthrowing of the Kuomintang was Authoritarian. Why? Because it is a seizing of power by the Proletariat, and taking the power away in a forcefully and Authoritative way from the ruling class. Which just so happens to be the case for all socialist revolutions.

You seem to think there is such a thing as a non-Authoritarian Revolution, which I have already stated to be untrue.

[Goatse]

There's no such thing as a non-Authoritarian revolution, there is no choice. The only revolutions to ever suceed, within ever ideology in the world and on the political spectrum are authoritarian.

And how, exactly, did any leftist revolutions succeed?

And no, I don't mean the previous government was overthrown. I mean actual leftist society was instated.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:51 pm

There's no such thing as a non-Authoritarian revolution, there is no choice. The only revolutions to ever suceed, within ever ideology in the world and on the political spectrum are authoritarian.

And how, exactly, did any leftist revolutions succeed?

And no, I don't mean the previous government was overthrown. I mean actual leftist society was instated.
Government by Mao certainly was not Rightist. Perhaps not completely and totally Communist (which is stateless, in Marx's theories), but a sucessful Leftist revolution, in my books. As was Cuba.

There is no other way to revolt. There haven't been any totally stateless Communist societies at all, which you should know. Either way, I did say "within all ideologies" did I not? The American Revolution from Britain was authoritarian, for example. What was it? The oppressed taking power from the oppressor.

[Goatse]

Look at China today. How on earth could you actually say its authoritarian revolution succeeded?

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:59 pm
Look at China today. How on earth could you actually say its authoritarian revolution succeeded?
I'm observing China under Maoism, not today. After Mao's death China became something Mao did not want, which is obvious because China is right now a Republic. In formal terms, "Socialist" Republic...but the Communist Party of China is most definitely not being run in the exact methods Mao would.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:59 pm
Look at China today. How on earth could you actually say its authoritarian revolution succeeded?
All fucking revolutions were authoritarian. You refer to it as if it's a method.

[RedStarOverChina]

Political oppression is not always wrong. Depends on who is being "oppressed".

Should we cry foul when it is the Nazis or the capitalists who are "oppressed"? I wouldn't shed a tear, personally.

"Oppression" against the oppressors is what the Dictatorship of Proletariat is all about----Not that the pre-1976 PRC had anything to do with a Dictartorship of the Proletariat.

[autocritique]

Originally posted by Saint Street Revolution+September 11, 2007 07:31 pm--> (Saint Street Revolution @ September 11, 2007 07:31 pm)Righto then, I came across this quote by our beloved friend Mao Zedong:


Originally posted by Mao (this is alledgedly only a bit of the quote)+--> (Mao (this is alledgedly only a bit of the quote))"How shall we deal with individuals with non-Marxist ideas? I find it quite simple. We simply deprive them of their freedom of speech."[/b][/b]


Saint Street [email protected] 11, 2007 08:09 pm

Mao
What should our policy be towards non-Marxist ideas? As far as unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause are concerned, the matter is easy, we simply deprive them of their freedom of speech. But incorrect ideas among the people are quite a different matter. Will it do to ban such ideas and deny them any opportunity for expression? Certainly not. It is not only futile but very harmful to use crude methods in dealing with ideological questions among the people, with questions about man's mental world. You may ban the expression of wrong ideas, but the ideas will still be there. On the other hand, if correct ideas are pampered in hothouses and never exposed to the elements and immunized against disease, they will not win out against erroneous ones. Therefore, it is only by employing the method of discussion, criticism and reasoning that we can really foster correct ideas and overcome wrong ones, and that we can really settle issues.

Compare the entire paragraph with the single sentence you originally provided.

In context, we can clearly see Mao is referring to "unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause," not every single person with non-Marxist ideas. In another words, the first quote you've provided--which intentionally omits one of the single most important points and suggests Mao was saying precisely the opposite of what he actually said--a not-too-clever opportunistic forgery. There are plenty such "quotes" floating about, which is why it's a good idea to check sources. Otherwise you can end up contributing to the spread of a lie, unintentionally, without even realizing it.

If you want to debate Mao's line and practice, I think that's great. But let's deal with his actual politics, and not some made-up silliness.

For instance, the reader might wish to examine how well the ideas in Mao's paragraph were applied to "unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause" such as Chou En-Lai and Deng Xiaoping. Or how "unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause" such as Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao were able to occupy leading posts for years, even decades, before suddenly being "unmasked."

[RNK]

Here's another "fun" quote from comrade Mao:


Second, it should be affirmed that counter-revolutionaries still exist, although their number has greatly diminished. After the Hu Feng case surfaced, it was necessary to ferret out the counter-revolutionaries. The effort to clear out those who remain hidden must go on. It should be affirmed that there are still a small number of counter-revolutionaries carrying out counter-revolutionary sabotage of one kind or another. For example, they kill cattle, set fire to granaries, wreck factories, steal information and put up reactionary posters. Consequently, it is wrong to say that counter-revolutionaries have been completely eliminated and that we can therefore lay our heads on our pillows and just drop off to sleep. As long as class struggle exists in China and in the world, we should never relax our vigilance. Nevertheless, it would be equally wrong to assert that there are still large numbers of counter-revolutionaries.

Third, from now on there should be fewer arrests and executions in the suppression of counter-revolutionaries in society at large. They are the mortal and immediate enemies of the people and are deeply hated by them, and therefore a small number should be executed. But most of them should be handed over to the agricultural co-operatives and made to work under supervision and be reformed through labour. All the same, we cannot announce that there will be no more executions, and we must not abolish the death penalty.

Fourth, in clearing out counter-revolutionaries in Party and government organs, schools and army units, we must adhere to the policy started in Yenan of killing none and arresting few. Confirmed counter-revolutionaries are to be screened by the organizations concerned, but they are not to be arrested by the public security bureaus, prosecuted by the procuratorial organs or tried by the law courts. Well over ninety out of every hundred of these counter-revolutionaries should be dealt with in this way. This is what we mean by arresting few. As for executions, kill none.


For instance, the reader might wish to examine how well the ideas in Mao's paragraph were applied to "unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause" such as Chou En-Lai and Deng Xiaoping. Or how "unmistakable counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs of the socialist cause" such as Liu Shao-chi and Lin Piao were able to occupy leading posts for years, even decades, before suddenly being "unmasked."

I think Mao was quite simply wrong in this matter. While I admire his efforts to combat counter-revolutionary influence in society and in the Party, it's quite clear that he was simply not up to the task and that his strategy simply did not work. Revisionists and anti-communists like Deng and hundreds of others remained in the Party throughout all of the 1950s -- obviously, their subterfuge was not detected. Though during the Cultural Revolution, purges and ideological cleansing did take place, it was far too late. The capitalist seeds had already grown and prospered in the Party itself despite Mao's best efforts.

I believe the problem was that there was far too little accountability of the Party to the people. Politics in China were still far too much a closed-door affair; inter-party rivalries and schisms marked most of China's first 30 years after the success of the revolution. This should not happen; political climates should not have such an independance from the decisions of the masses that politicians can form their own internal power struggles. Politics must be mandated from the people.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Or, and far more reasonably: Maoism -- refuted by history.

Now, can we leave this monster to rot?

[RGacky3]

"Oppression" against the oppressors is what the Dictatorship of Proletariat is all about----Not that the pre-1976 PRC had anything to do with a Dictartorship of the Proletariat.

After the revolutoin the oppressors are not oppressors any more, no, in many cases the ologarchy that passes itself off as 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' becomes the oppressor and oppresses any oposition.

Freedom of speach is'nt free unless its for everyone, and saying that oppression is ok, but only against some people is putting subjective rules on something that can't be subjectively based.

[RNK]

Refuted by history? That's quite simpleton logic. In that case, I suppose everything not currently existing has been "refusted by history" as it quite obviously has either failed, been destroyed, or not even had the good grace to exist right now.

[Panda Tse Tung]

The problem is, how can you know what kinds of ideas a person has? How do you know who has non-Marxist ideas? As Deng so clearly proved, it is quite possible for a reactionary to pass himself off as a Marxist until the time is right.

It's about freedom speech not freedom of thought which is a huge mistake you seem to be making.
Of course a lot of revisionists and capitalist-roaders are quite capable of keeping shut until 'the time is right'. But as long as the masses are revolutionized and thought how to fight of revisionism there wont be many problems with that.


Why is political oppression wrong when right wingers do it?

It's simply whom you side with, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. If your a Communist and you side with the proletariat it is obvious that any persecution of proletarians is something you should oppose. While the persecution of the bourgeoisie is something that should be supported in the interest of the proletariat.


Look at China today. How on earth could you actually say its authoritarian revolution succeeded?

Thats quite a lacking analyses of the situation. The fact is that the revisionists in the CPC still have to act like their Communists (and a huge portion probably still believes they are) because of the great ideological advances that we're made during years of revolution. If there we're factual capitalist-roaders in the party that wanted to re-install a bourgeoisie 'democracy' they would have to act like they would want to do that within the context of Socialism (Like Gorbatsjev and Kruschev). All thanks to the revolutions that preceded them. It took the revisionists (in the USSR) 40 years to destroy what had been build for 40 years, thus showing the strength of those revolutions.


I think Mao was quite simply wrong in this matter. While I admire his efforts to combat counter-revolutionary influence in society and in the Party, it's quite clear that he was simply not up to the task and that his strategy simply did not work. Revisionists and anti-communists like Deng and hundreds of others remained in the Party throughout all of the 1950s -- obviously, their subterfuge was not detected. Though during the Cultural Revolution, purges and ideological cleansing did take place, it was far too late. The capitalist seeds had already grown and prospered in the Party itself despite Mao's best efforts.

I doubt it was too late, the problem was the mistakes being made after the Cultural Revolution. Trying to bring back some order after the semi-anarchic situation that occurred. Thus re-installing Deng Xiaoping into a high position, etc... etc...


Freedom of speach is'nt free unless its for everyone, and saying that oppression is ok, but only against some people is putting subjective rules on something that can't be subjectively based.

Freedom of speech is when your free to speak, so if you speak freely within a Marxist context all good and well, if you do so in a Capitalist context then you are being reactionary, simple as that.


Refuted by history? That's quite simpleton logic. In that case, I suppose everything not currently existing has been "refusted by history" as it quite obviously has either failed, been destroyed, or not even had the good grace to exist right now.

Maoism isn't non-existing, thats the point. Look at Nepal and the Philippines for example, lots of Maoist party's throughout the world still have a lot of influence.

[RGacky3]

Freedom of speech is when your free to speak, so if you speak freely within a Marxist context all good and well, if you do so in a Capitalist context then you are being reactionary, simple as that.

So what? People should be free to be reactionaries if they choose, freedom of speach is for everyone, reactionary or not.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:37 pm

Freedom of speech is when your free to speak, so if you speak freely within a Marxist context all good and well, if you do so in a Capitalist context then you are being reactionary, simple as that.

So what? People should be free to be reactionaries if they choose, freedom of speach is for everyone, reactionary or not.
This idealist view that the bourgeoisie should be allowed to operate freely and spread capitalist propaganda during the revolution, and during the aftermath in the new but still endangered Socialist order is ludicrous and suicidal.

[Ultra-Violence]

Originally posted by Saint Street Revolution+September 12, 2007 01:31 am--> (Saint Street Revolution @ September 12, 2007 01:31 am) Righto then, I came across this quote by our beloved friend Mao Zedong:


Mao (this is alledgedly only a bit of the quote)
"How shall we deal with individuals with non-Marxist ideas? I find it quite simple. We simply deprive them of their freedom of speech."

Fuck that. [/b]
i agree with mao right here Its not a bad idea realy The fucking Capi Mother fuckers do it to us now and its pretty afective and Freedom of Speech is a grey area really IMO

[RNK]

So what? People should be free to be reactionaries if they choose, freedom of speach is for everyone, reactionary or not.

This is exactly the problem we face today. If you give them complete and utter freedom of speech, what then? What will happen if some bloke in a factory, who is obviously a very intelligent and more importantly a very outspoken person, decides that he would like to turn his factory into a capitalist model? What happens if he and some friends decide to try and re-invigorate manipulation, greed, exploitation? The obvious anarchist answer to this question would be the prevailing morality of "free men" (though that begs the question why this capitalist system came about if it weren't for the ability of some to manipulate others against their will). Granted, in a classless society, talk of capitalism will be as alien and hostile as talk of communism is in the general public today, but let's not put blind faith in the impeccable strength of will of man and be realistic here. It will always be possible for corruption and greed to rear it's ugly head, particularly as was seen in pretty much every instance of the capitalist system's destruction. It is about time you give up the dream and realize that this will be no dance in the meadows, that a realistic and materialist approach to the restructuring of society and the economy must be adopted, and yes that does mean removing the ability of capitalist sympathizers to spread their harmful ideas. Perhaps the outright execution of every suspected capitalist is not the answer, but neither is doing jack shit and expecting everything to work out fine without some sort of concrete plan. Of course, your next retort will be something along the lines of "Oh, but look how that planning turned out in Russia and in China!" Only a fool would completely abandon a planning methadology simply because a few prior plans have not been successful. But then again, most anarchists are fools.

If you want to live with free speech, where people have the "freedom" to manipulate others, to spread the lies of greed and discrimination and racism, fine. You can rot in a cell with them.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:37 pm

Freedom of speech is when your free to speak, so if you speak freely within a Marxist context all good and well, if you do so in a Capitalist context then you are being reactionary, simple as that.

So what? People should be free to be reactionaries if they choose, freedom of speach is for everyone, reactionary or not.
Really? You really would want reactionaries runing around screwing up everything and undermining the revolution?

Reactionaries can have their personal freedom, such as this non-existent "freedom of speech" you refered to...Until the minute they start saying crap about the revolution. Then they should be tried and executed.

[ComradeR]

Words can be more dangerous then bombs if used by someone who is a charismatic speaker and/or able to manipulate people. Why give them the freedom to threaten the revolution?

Reactionaries can have their personal freedom, such as this non-existent "freedom of speech" you refered to...Until the minute they start saying crap about the revolution. Then they should be tried and executed.
Execution is far to harsh for spreading reactionary propaganda comrade.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:46 am
Execution is far to harsh for spreading reactionary propaganda comrade.
Yeah you are right. I guess one would have to say A LOT of crap about the revolution to get himself a death penalty. :P